SUBHAS ROY Vs. BINAY KUMAR MAZUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was adjourned on February 16, 2022 to enable the appellant to represent and make appropriate submission. In spite of giving opportunity, today also the appellant is not represented, nor any accommodation is prayed for.

(2.) The Judgment and decree dated 28th June , 2019 passed by the Learned 3rd Court, Additional District Judge, Howrah, in Title Appeal No. 142/2012, affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 30/7/2012 passed by learned First Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah, is the subject matter of the present appeal.

(3.) We have considered the judgment and decree of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court and the grounds of appeal. In the grounds of appeal two points have been urged, namely, res judicata and defective notice of eviction. In order to ascertain whether the said points in the facts and circumstances of the case constitute substantial questions of law in favour of admission of the appeal, we have to consider the brief facts and the findings of both the courts below in respect of the aforesaid two issues. Plaintiff/respondents case in a nutshell is that plaintiff's father Girish Chandra Mazumder was original owner of the suit property and during his lifetime he settled suit property in favour of his only son i.e. plaintiff by executing registered deed of settlement on 1/1/1988. Defendant was a tenant in respect of schedule mentioned shop room at a monthly rental of Rs.50.00 payable according to english calendar month. The defendant was habitual defaulter in payment of rent since February , 1999. The suit shop room is also required for plaintiffs use and occupation and for which he sent a notice of ejectment, asking the defendant to quit and vacate the suit shop room but the defendant inspite of receipt of that notice, did not vacate the suit premises. Hence the suit.